harmless error in Nebraska

2016Id.

2016Id.

2020State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 649 , 936 N.W.2d 486 (2019). [3] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complaining party.

2019App. 544 , 921 N.W.2d 151 (2018). - 663 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DADY Cite as 304 Neb. 649 identified, the court considers whether the error was harmless or prejudicial.16 Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complaining party.17 When examining for harmless error, the court may look at a variety of factors including the jury instructions as a whole, the evidence presented at trial, and the closing arguments.18 We

2025Stat. § 29-2308 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides that no judgment in a criminal case shall be set aside or new trial granted because of the rejection of evidence, unless a substan- tial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. [11-14] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result. 37 An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless it can be said that the error was harm

2025Stat. § 29-2308 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides that no judgment in a criminal case shall be set aside or new trial granted because of the rejection of evidence, unless a substan- tial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. [11-14] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result. 37 An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless it can be said that the error was harm

2025Stat. § 29-2308 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides that no judgment in a criminal case shall be set aside or new trial granted because of the rejection of evidence, unless a substan- tial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. [11-14] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result. 37 An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless it can be said that the error was harm

2025Stat. § 29-2308 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides that no judgment in a criminal case shall be set aside or new trial granted because of the rejection of evidence, unless a substan- tial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. [11-14] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result. 37 An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless it can be said that the error was harm

2019When dispositive issues on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.2 [2] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.3 [3] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty ver- dict surely would have been ren

2019When dispositive issues on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.2 [2] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.3 [3] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty ver- dict surely would have been ren

2007Id.

2006State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Freeman, 267 Neb. 737 , 677 N.W.2d 164 (2004).

2003State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552 , 641 N.W.2d 43 (2002); State v. Trotter, 262 Neb. 443 , 632 N.W.2d 325 (2001).

2003State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552 , 641 N.W.2d 43 (2002); State v. Trotter, 262 Neb. 443 , 632 N.W.2d 325 (2001).

2000Fales v. Books, 253 Neb. 491 , 570 N.W.2d 841 (1997).

2000Fales v. Books, 253 Neb. 491 , 570 N.W.2d 841 (1997).

2022At trial, Kliegl tes- tified, without objection, that when he initially asked Miller if he was alone in the vehicle, Miller responded with “like a grunt, like towards a yes.” Kliegl then testified that when he asked again later, Miller gave a more definitive “no.” And in response to questioning from Miller on cross-examination, Kliegl admitted that the first few times he asked Miller ques- tions at the scene, “all [he got] back [were] unintelligible moans.” So although Miller’s initial responses were redacted 60 Id. at 17-18 . 61 See State v. Manchester, 213 Neb. 670 , 331 N.W.2d 776 (1983). 6

2021Each will be addressed in turn. (a) Standard of Review [16,17] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules and judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 25 Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. 26 [18] A party who fails to make a timely objection to evi- dence waives the right on appeal

2021State v. Rask, 294 Neb. 612 , 883 N.W.2d 688 (2016). [6] In a harmless error review, an appellate court looks at the evidence upon which the jury rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict surely would have been rendered, but, rather, whether the guilty verdict rendered in the trial was surely unattributable to the error.

2021State v. Rask, 294 Neb. 612 , 883 N.W.2d 688 (2016). [6] In a harmless error review, an appellate court looks at the evidence upon which the jury rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict surely would have been rendered, but, rather, whether the guilty verdict rendered in the trial was surely unattributable to the error.

2019When dispositive issues on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.2 [2] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.3 [3] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty ver- dict surely would have been ren

2019When dispositive issues on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.2 [2] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.3 [3] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty ver- dict surely would have been ren

2017An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.37 Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the jury actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that 37 State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 , 870 N.W.2d 784 (2015). - 895 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LESTER Cite as 295 Neb. 878 occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the actual guilty verdict r

2017An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.37 Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the jury actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that 37 State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 , 870 N.W.2d 784 (2015). - 895 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LESTER Cite as 295 Neb. 878 occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the actual guilty verdict r

1996Moreover, in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed and clarified the type of jury instruction errors that are amenable to a harmless error analysis under the U.S. Constitution.

1996Moreover, in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed and clarified the type of jury instruction errors that are amenable to a harmless error analysis under the U.S. Constitution.

2000Corcoran v. Lovercheck, 256 Neb. 936 , 594 N.W.2d 615 (1999).

2000Corcoran v. Lovercheck, 256 Neb. 936 , 594 N.W.2d 615 (1999).

1996The U.S. Supreme Court’s harmless error analysis, having been developed and refined over 29 years since Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

1996The U.S. Supreme Court’s harmless error analysis, having been developed and refined over 29 years since Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2023Id. at 833-34 , 948 N.W.2d at 318 .

2023Id. at 833-34 , 948 N.W.2d at 318 .

2021App. 1960); Commonwealth v. Krick, 164 Pa. Super. 516 , 67 A.2d 746 (1949). 12 See, Smith, supra note 11 ; Bindyke, supra note 11 (citing Beasley, supra note 11 ; State v. Cuzick, 85 Wash. 2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 (1975); and Krick, supra note 11 ). 13 See id. 14 Beasley, supra note 11 , 464 F.2d at 470 . 15 Bouey v. State, 762 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla. App. 2000). 16 See id. - 451 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MADREN Cite as 308 Neb. 443 But if the alternate is only present during organizational activi- ties and the case is not discussed, a harmless error anal

2021App. 1960); Commonwealth v. Krick, 164 Pa. Super. 516 , 67 A.2d 746 (1949). 12 See, Smith, supra note 11 ; Bindyke, supra note 11 (citing Beasley, supra note 11 ; State v. Cuzick, 85 Wash. 2d 146 , 530 P.2d 288 (1975); and Krick, supra note 11 ). 13 See id. 14 Beasley, supra note 11 , 464 F.2d at 470 . 15 Bouey v. State, 762 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla. App. 2000). 16 See id. - 451 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MADREN Cite as 308 Neb. 443 But if the alternate is only present during organizational activi- ties and the case is not discussed, a harmless error anal

2020State v. Jennings, 305 Neb. 809 , 942 N.W.2d 753 (2020).

2020Jennings argues that these items were seized pursuant to the insufficiently particular clause “[c]lothing items,” which is similar to the clause authorizing seizure of “‘footwear [and] clothing” which the 10th Circuit has held violates the par- ticularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 48 Assuming without deciding that the admission of these photographs vio- lates the particularity clause, we find their admission to be harmless error. 48 See U.S. v. Sells, supra note 36 , 463 F.3d at 1152 . - 833 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. JENNINGS Cite as 305

2020State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 , 773 N.W.2d 356 (2009).

2020State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 , 773 N.W.2d 356 (2009).

2018Generally speak- ing, in criminal cases, the purpose of harmless error review is to ensure convictions are not set aside “‘for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’”7 [4,5] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result.8 It is only prejudicial error, that is, error which cannot be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside.9 [6,7] When determining

2018Generally speak- ing, in criminal cases, the purpose of harmless error review is to ensure convictions are not set aside “‘for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’”7 [4,5] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result.8 It is only prejudicial error, that is, error which cannot be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside.9 [6,7] When determining

2018Trial Court Did Not Err in R ejecting Rodriguez’ R equested Jury Instructions [6] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.7 A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed upon only those theories of the case which are presented by the pleadings and which are supported by competent evidence.8 2 See Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, 297 Neb. 111 , 900 N.W

2018Trial Court Did Not Err in R ejecting Rodriguez’ R equested Jury Instructions [6] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complain- ing party.7 A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed upon only those theories of the case which are presented by the pleadings and which are supported by competent evidence.8 2 See Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, 297 Neb. 111 , 900 N.W

2018Generally speak- ing, in criminal cases, the purpose of harmless error review is to ensure convictions are not set aside “‘for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’”7 [4,5] Harmless error jurisprudence recognizes that not all trial errors, even those of constitutional magnitude, entitle a criminal defendant to the reversal of an adverse trial result.8 It is only prejudicial error, that is, error which cannot be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside.9 [6,7] When determining

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the lower court’s determination.1 1 State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 , 857 N.W.2d 334 (2015). - 617 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. RASK Cite as 294 Neb. 612 [2] In a jury trial of a criminal case, an erroneous eviden- tiary ruling results in prejudice to a defendant unless the State demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reason- able doubt.2 [3] In a harmless error review, an appellate court looks at the evidence upon whi

2016Harmless error exists in a bench trial of a criminal case when there is some incorrect conduct by the trial court which, on review of the entire record, did not materially influence - 704 - Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals 23 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. McMILLION Cite as 23 Neb.

2016Harmless error exists in a bench trial of a criminal case when there is some incorrect conduct by the trial court which, on review of the entire record, did not materially influence - 704 - Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals 23 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. McMILLION Cite as 23 Neb.

2015State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432 , 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000). -3- VI.

2015State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432 , 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000). -3- VI.

2013That is not to say that a limiting instruction is always required; however, except in the rare case where other safeguards combine to make the limited purpose of the demonstrative exhibit abundantly clear to the jury, an appropriate limiting instruction will be necessary to avoid unfair prejudice. (e) Harmless Error Analysis [9-12] Errors, other than structural errors, which occur within the trial and sentencing process, are subject to harmless error review.74 Harmless error exists when there is some incor- rect conduct by the trial court which, on review of the entire record, did not material

2013That is not to say that a limiting instruction is always required; however, except in the rare case where other safeguards combine to make the limited purpose of the demonstrative exhibit abundantly clear to the jury, an appropriate limiting instruction will be necessary to avoid unfair prejudice. (e) Harmless Error Analysis [9-12] Errors, other than structural errors, which occur within the trial and sentencing process, are subject to harmless error review.74 Harmless error exists when there is some incor- rect conduct by the trial court which, on review of the entire record, did not material